Speaking at a memorial meeting in Bandra, Mumbai, Teesta Setalvad reflects on the extraordinary journey of the 84-year-old Jesuit priest who dedicated decades of his life to defending Adivasi communities, battling systemic injustice, achieving path-breaking victories through India’s judicial system.

Setalvad also recalls his constitutional values, his powerful writings, and the circumstances that led to his incarceration under the UAPA in the Bhima Koregaon case.

As his health deteriorated in custody, repeated pleas for bail were denied.

He died a sick man, a victim of a failed system.

The post Did Indian Democracy fail Father Stan Swamy? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement has elaborated on the provisions of international humanitarian law that recognises that even in times of war, humanity must prevail, the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols grant special protection to hospitals, ambulances, medical personnel, and rescue workers, recognising that those who dedicate their lives to saving others must never become targets of armed conflict. These fundamental and noble principles have been repeatedly and systematically violated by Israel, the occupying Power, says the statement.

“The destruction of healthcare infrastructure has reached catastrophic proportions. Hospitals have been bombed, besieged, and rendered inoperable. Ambulances have been attacked while attempting to rescue the wounded. Doctors, nurses, and paramedics have been killed, injured, or detained while performing their humanitarian duties.

“As of today, only 19 of Gaza’s 34 hospitals remain partially operational, operating under impossible conditions, while severe shortages of medicines, medical equipment, fuel, electricity, and clean water continue to push the healthcare system toward total collapse. In the occupied West Bank, repeated military incursions, restrictions on movement, and shortages of essential medicines have severely disrupted healthcare delivery, with approximately 11,000 surgical procedures reportedly postponed, placing thousands of patients’ lives at further risk.

“This humanitarian catastrophe is not an inevitable consequence of war; it is the result of Israel’s systematic dismantling of the Palestinian healthcare system upon which millions of Palestinian civilians depend for their survival.

“The world witnessed the tragic fate of six-year-old Hind Rajab, who was targeted by the Israeli army after remaining trapped for hours. The Palestine Red Crescent ambulance sent to rescue her, despite prior coordination with Israeli authorities, was also attacked, killing the two paramedics. A recent United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli forces deliberately targeted both the family vehicle and the ambulance.

“Similarly, on March 23, 2025, the international community watched in horror as video evidence emerged documenting the Israeli killing of Palestinian rescue workers in Rafah while carrying out their humanitarian mission. These were not isolated tragedies, but part of a systematic pattern documented by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and numerous international humanitarian organizations, and they represent only the tip of the iceberg.

“Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, Director of Kamal Adwan Hospital and a respected paediatrician, has become the face of the resilience and humanitarian commitment of Palestinian healthcare workers. As northern Gaza’s healthcare system collapsed under repeated military assaults and siege, he chose to remain with his patients, refusing to abandon those who depended on his care.

“His personal sacrifice became even more profound when he lost his own son, Ibrahim, who was killed during the assault on Kamal Adwan Hospital. Despite this devastating personal tragedy, Dr. Abu Safiya returned almost immediately to caring for his patients, embodying the highest ideals of the medical profession.

“On December 27, 2024, following the assault on Kamal Adwan Hospital-the last functioning hospital in northern Gaza-Israeli forces detained Dr. Abu Safiya, together with members of the medical staff and patients, under Israel’s Unlawful Combatants Law. Since then, he has remained in Israeli detention. His continued detention has become a matter of grave international concern.

“Yesterday, July 8, 2026, United Nations Special Rapporteurs and independent human rights experts called for Dr. Abu Safiya’s immediate release, expressing serious concern over credible reports that he has been subjected to torture, other forms of ill-treatment, prolonged solitary confinement, denial of adequate medical care, and a severe deterioration in both his physical and psychological condition. The experts further emphasized that his detention appears to be arbitrary and urged his immediate release unless internationally recognized criminal charges are promptly brought against him.”

It is in light of these dire and precarious circumstances that the Palestinian embassy has issued the statement and appeal. The appeal calls on all Indians to support and join the call for the immediate and unconditional release of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya; advocating for the protection of Palestinian healthcare workers, hospitals, ambulances, and medical facilities in accordance with international humanitarian law; supporting independent international investigations and accountability for attacks against medical personnel and healthcare infrastructure; and backing urgent international efforts to restore and strengthen the Palestinian healthcare system while ensuring the unhindered delivery of essential medical supplies and humanitarian assistance.

The continued detention of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya is not merely the case of one physician. It symbolizes the broader assault on the Palestinian healthcare system and the humanitarian principles that underpin international law. Wider support can make a meaningful difference in defending these universal values.

Related:

Israel, United States & and other complicit entities guilty of genocide, ecocide, and forced starvation in Palestine: International People’s Tribunal

Gaza: 700 citizens demand release of detained Madleen activists, call upon UK to fix Israel’s accountability for genocide, blockade, war crimes in Palestine

Illegality of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

The post The arbitrary detention of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya: A call for justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Despite a sewer, death happening every 45 hours in the country, shameless governments have chosen to remain in criminal silence. Needless to say, Dalit lives don’t matter for government and they have been turned into a new normal. How widespread this practice is can be understood by this simple fact that this year sewer and septic tank deaths have been reported from 16 states across the. Increase in number of deaths in sewers and septic tanks have been alarming over the last decade. While in 2016 only 39 deaths were reported, this figure jumped by 350% next year in 2017 to a staggering 137 deaths.

After various Supreme Court Judgments and the subsequent passage of the ‘Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act’, 2013, one would have expected the governments to be proactive. However, SKA has documented 1726 deaths since the new act came into force. Among them 1203 deaths came just from seven states—Tamil Nadu (332), Gujarat (216), Delhi-NCR (157), Maharashtra (155), Uttar Pradesh (148), Haryana (104) and Bihar (91). Despite such high numbers, none of these states have taken even a single step to stop these deaths.

NAMASTE (National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem) scheme was launched by the Modi government in July 2023. The scheme had an allocation of Rs. 349.73 Cr though for building toilets. While, under Swachh Bharat scheme, government had already spent Rs 19 thousand Cr for building 12 Cr toilets. However, neither was the sanitation ecosystem mechanised, nor were dry toilets completely eliminated.

Ironically and unfortunately, all these years ministers in the Modi government kept denying these sordid facts in Parliament, stating, shockingly, that there were no deaths in the country due to Manual Scavenging. Clearly, the act meant or means nothing for them. It also shows, how much government values the lives of Safai Karmacharis, who are still considered to be untouchables.

The SKA has demanded that the Prime Minister intervenes immediately to announce a complete full stop to deaths inside sewers and septic tanks. The press release has been issued by Bezwada Wilson, National Convenor, SKA.

Related:

58 reported deaths in Gujarat in last 5 years: Union Govt data reveals deaths due to cleaning of sewers and septic tanks

Continuing deaths of sewer workers reveals a cynical culture of impunity

941 deaths while cleaning sewers, septic tanks: Centre informs Rajya Sabha

The post Though sewer deaths have crossed the 100 mark this year, government is silent: SKA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to Hindustan Times, the IDC will now examine the contents of the film and make recommendations to the Union government regarding any further action. The committee forms part of the government’s oversight mechanism for OTT platforms and digital publishers and comprises senior representatives from the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting, Home Affairs, Electronics and Information Technology, Law and Justice, Defence, External Affairs, Women and Child Development, along with other ministries or domain experts that the MIB may nominate. It is chaired by an authorised officer of at least the rank of Joint Secretary.

The latest development follows the government’s directive to ZEE5 to take down Satluj under Section 69A of the IT Act, read with Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Section 69A empowers the Central Government to block or disable public access to online content on grounds including the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, defence of India, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or to prevent the commission of cognisable offences.

Unlike theatrical releases, which require certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), OTT platforms fall outside the CBFC’s jurisdiction and are governed by Part III of the 2021 IT Rules. These rules extend a regulatory framework to publishers of online curated content and digital news, enabling the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to issue directions regarding online content under specified circumstances.

Government sources, quoted by PTI and Hindustan Times, stated that the takedown was prompted by “security concerns” and the obligations imposed on OTT platforms under the IT Rules. According to officials, the makers had originally submitted the film, then titled Punjab ’95, to the CBFC in 2022 for theatrical certification. The Board reportedly sought an unprecedented 127 cuts before granting certification. The filmmakers declined to accept those edits, following which the project remained stalled for several years before eventually being released directly on ZEE5 under the new title Satluj on July 3.

Officials told PTI that after the uncut version became available online, the government intervened and directed ZEE5 to remove it. “If they want to release the film in theatres and OTT, they should follow the laid down norms,” one official was quoted as saying by PTI.

Following the government’s direction, ZEE5 confirmed through an official statement on Instagram that Satluj would be “unavailable in India until further notice” due to “current developments”, without elaborating further. The platform thanked viewers for the overwhelming response the film had received following its release. While inaccessible in India, the film reportedly continues to be available internationally through ZEE5 Global.

The controversy has also highlighted the distinct regulatory regimes governing cinema and digital platforms. Newly appointed CBFC Chairperson Shashi Shekar clarified that the certification board had no role in the OTT release, observing that “OTT platforms don’t come under the jurisdiction of the CBFC.”

A film about one of India’s most important human rights cases

Directed by Honey Trehan, Satluj chronicles the life of Jaswant Singh Khalra, the prominent Punjab human rights activist who exposed the illegal cremation of thousands of unidentified bodies by the Punjab Police during the militancy and counter-insurgency period between 1984 and 1994.

Khalra was abducted outside his residence in September 1995 after documenting these disappearances and was never seen alive again. His case later became one of the most significant instances of enforced disappearance and custodial killing in India. In 2005, four Punjab Police personnel were convicted for his abduction and murder, and in 2007, the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced their sentences to life imprisonment.

Despite the historical importance of Khalra’s work, the film has faced repeated obstacles since its completion. Apart from the demand for 127 cuts by the CBFC, Punjab ’95 was also removed from the official line-up of the 2023 Toronto International Film Festival shortly before its scheduled premiere, without any public explanation from the festival organisers.

Detailed report may be read here.

Legal basis invoked by the government

The government’s action relies on the framework created under the Information Technology Act and the 2021 IT Rules. Part III of the IT Rules incorporates a Code of Ethics applicable to publishers of online curated content. The Code requires publishers to exercise due caution when content may affect India’s sovereignty and integrity, threaten national security, disturb public order, harm friendly relations with foreign States, or incite violence. It further requires publishers to be mindful of India’s multi-religious and multi-racial social context while depicting communities and sensitive subjects.

Notably, aspects of the Code of Ethics have themselves been the subject of constitutional challenges before various High Courts. The Bombay High Court had stayed certain provisions relating to governmental oversight under the IT Rules in 2021, a stay that the Madras High Court subsequently observed would operate across India. As reported by Mint, it remains unclear whether the Centre specifically relied upon the Code of Ethics while issuing the takedown direction to ZEE5, or whether the order rests exclusively on its powers under Section 69A.

More on IT Act may be read here and here.

Political and public backlash

The removal of the film has triggered sharp criticism from political leaders, filmmakers and free speech advocates. As reported by Scroll, Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal described the decision as “not mere censorship” but “an assault on our collective memory, truth and freedom of expression”, arguing that Punjab must be allowed to confront its history rather than suppress it.

AAP leader Baltej Pannu similarly alleged that the removal was intended to prevent younger generations from learning about a painful chapter in Punjab’s past, claiming that both the BJP and Congress had an interest in suppressing the historical record.

Related:

From Punjab ’95 to Satluj: When cinema becomes a battlefield over history, memory and censorship

Satluj: A film encountered

Kerala’s LDF govt to defy Centre’s diktat, to screen all films as per schedule at IFFK

Erasing Resistance: How the CBFC is censoring films that challenge caste and state power

Safe harbour or shadow censorship? The battle over India’s digital speech

The telegram NEET case and the expansion of platform-level censorship in India

The post Centre escalates action against Satluj, refers film to high-level committee after ordering OTT takedown appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The story of Punjab ’95—eventually released on ZEE5 as Satluj—has now become far larger than the film itself. It has evolved into one of the most significant contemporary debates on censorship, artistic freedom and the State’s uneasy relationship with politically sensitive histories. At its centre, lies a profound constitutional question: Can a democracy allow uncomfortable truths to be told through cinema, particularly when those truths concern allegations of abuse by State institutions?

The controversy surrounding Satluj is not simply about certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), nor is it confined to questions of film regulation. It raises broader concerns about whether politically inconvenient narratives can find space in India’s public sphere at all. Over the course of three years, the film encountered repeated delays, demands for sweeping edits, multiple title changes, withdrawal from an international film festival, abandonment of its theatrical release, and finally, removal from an OTT platform within days of release. Each development added another layer to an increasingly troubling narrative about the shrinking space available for artistic engagement with contentious political history.

Ironically, the film itself tells the story of a man who dedicated his life to uncovering suppressed truths. That parallel has not gone unnoticed. Following the film’s removal from ZEE5, lead actor Diljit Dosanjh shared a still from the film on Instagram with a pointed message in Punjabi: “The same thing that happened to Satluj also happened to Shaheed Jaswant Singh Khalra.” Accompanied by the caption “I challenge the darkness,” the post transformed the controversy from a dispute over streaming rights into a larger commentary on memory, erasure and the continuing discomfort surrounding Khalra’s legacy. As reported by Hindustan Times, this marked Dosanjh’s first public response after the film’s abrupt removal, directly drawing a connection between the silencing of Khalra’s work in 1995 and what he perceived as the silencing of the film today. That comparison goes to the heart of why Satluj has generated such intense public debate.

Unlike fictional political dramas, Satluj is rooted in the life of a real human rights defender whose investigations forced India to confront one of the darkest chapters of Punjab’s insurgency years.

The story the film sought to tell

Originally conceived under the title Ghallughara, later renamed Punjab ’95, and finally released as Satluj, the film chronicles the life of Jaswant Singh Khalra, the Punjab-based human rights activist whose investigations into alleged enforced disappearances and secret cremations during the militancy period fundamentally altered public understanding of State violence in Punjab. Khalra was not a lawyer, journalist or politician.

He was a bank employee who gradually transformed into one of Punjab’s most influential human rights investigators after uncovering records revealing that thousands of unidentified bodies had been secretly cremated by the police without informing families or following legal procedure. By examining cremation registers and municipal records, Khalra alleged that security forces had carried out large-scale illegal cremations of persons who had disappeared during counter-insurgency operations. His work suggested that many of these individuals had never entered the criminal justice system at all.

These revelations that also attracted international attention and intensified demands for accountability during a period when allegations of fake encounters, custodial killings and enforced disappearances had already become the subject of sustained concern among domestic and international human rights organisations. Numerous media reports at the time documented Khalra’s efforts to compile documentary evidence of these alleged abuses and to bring them before judicial institutions and international forums. His investigations, however, came at an enormous personal cost.

[[On the disappearances in Punjab, the same subject that Khalra spent and gave his life working on, the Working Group (of the United Nations) on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, established in 1980, reported large numbers of enforced disappearances, attributing primary responsibility to the Punjab police. The Working Group also held that officers of the Punjab police acted with virtual impunity, disobeyed judicial orders, even ignored writs of habeas corpus and intimidated family members of disappeared persons so as to make them refrain from making complaints. The Group’s 1996/97 report also mentioned the disappearance of Jaswant Singh Khalra after he filed the petition regarding illegal cremations in the High Court, alleging that many of the cremated had been arrested by the Punjab police.[1]]]. Read Communalism Combat’s 2003 report on mass crimes violations here and here.

On September 6, 1995, Khalra was abducted outside his residence in Amritsar. According to findings that later emerged through criminal proceedings, he was illegally detained, tortured and murdered. His body was allegedly disposed of in the Harike canal after his killing. Following sustained litigation by his wife, Paramjit Kaur Khalra, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the Supreme Court. Several Punjab Police officials were eventually convicted for Khalra’s abduction and murder, convictions that were later upheld through the judicial process. His death transformed him from a human rights investigator into one of the most enduring symbols of the struggle against impunity in India.

A film that was never intended to be fiction

Unlike many historical dramas that borrow loosely from real events, Punjab ’95 was conceived as a biographical account inspired by Khalra’s life and struggles. Produced by Ronnie Screwvala’s RSVP Movies in collaboration with MacGuffin Pictures and directed by Honey Trehan, the film cast Diljit Dosanjh in what he would later describe as one of the most meaningful roles of his career.

According to both Trehan and Dosanjh, the project was undertaken with the consent and involvement of Khalra’s family. Paramjit Kaur Khalra reportedly viewed the completed film and confirmed that the version eventually released was the same version the family had previously seen, reinforcing the filmmakers’ assertion that they had resisted attempts to dilute the substance of the narrative. As Trehan later told Variety, only the title changed; the filmmakers maintained that the content remained intact despite years of pressure.

Dosanjh repeatedly emphasised that it was Khalra’s sacrifice, rather than commercial considerations, that persuaded him to join the project. Before the OTT release, he described the film as a story of “conviction, courage and humanity” and remarked that opportunities to participate in narratives of such historical significance were rare.

Three years in limbo

Completed several years ago, the film was submitted to the Central Board of Film Certification in 2022 for theatrical release. What followed would become one of the most controversial certification disputes in recent Indian cinema.

According to the filmmakers, the CBFC initially sought an unprecedented 127 cuts, in addition to changes to the title and other modifications before certification could be granted. The scale of the proposed changes was extraordinary, particularly for a film based on documented historical events.

Detailed report may be read here.

The battle over Punjab ’95 did not end with the CBFC’s reported insistence on over a hundred cuts. If anything, that confrontation marked only the beginning of a prolonged struggle that would span multiple years, multiple titles, multiple release plans and multiple forums before culminating in an unprecedented removal from an OTT platform.

For most films, certification is an administrative hurdle preceding release. For Punjab ’95, certification itself became the site of contestation over who gets to narrate history—and under what conditions.

The filmmakers consistently maintained that the film sought neither to sensationalise Punjab’s militancy nor to reopen old political wounds. Rather, they argued that it was an attempt to document the life of a man whose investigations into alleged enforced disappearances had already been acknowledged through judicial proceedings and whose murder had resulted in criminal convictions. Yet despite drawing from documented events, the film remained caught in a prolonged impasse with the certification authorities.

The Changing of Names: From Ghallughara to Punjab ’95 to Satluj

Perhaps no aspect of the film’s journey illustrates the pressures surrounding politically sensitive storytelling more vividly than its repeated changes of title. The project was originally announced under the title Ghallughara, a deeply significant Punjabi word historically associated with the massacres of Sikhs in 1746, 1762 and, in contemporary political discourse, often invoked in relation to the violence of 1984. The title immediately situated the film within a broader historical memory of collective trauma.

However, when the film entered the certification process, the title reportedly became one of the points of objection. According to several media reports, including Times of India, the filmmakers were asked to abandon the original title. The project subsequently became Punjab ’95, directly referencing the year in which Jaswant Singh Khalra was abducted and killed. Even that proved insufficient. After years of delays, the filmmakers were ultimately unable to retain Punjab ’95 either.

When the film finally appeared before audiences in July 2026, it carried an entirely different name—Satluj, named after the river that flows through Punjab. The change was not a creative choice.

Director Honey Trehan candidly acknowledged this reality while speaking to Variety, explaining simply that they could not secure the previous title and therefore the film would release under the name Satluj. The statement itself reflected the unusual circumstances surrounding the production. Rarely does a filmmaker publicly acknowledge that a title central to the identity of a film had to be abandoned not because of artistic reconsideration but because it could not obtain approval.

The film that never reached Toronto

The obstacles facing Punjab ’95 were not confined to India. In September 2023, the film had been selected for a world premiere at the prestigious Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), one of the world’s most important platforms for independent and political cinema. An international premiere would have introduced Khalra’s story to global audiences and placed the film within broader conversations on human rights and transitional justice. That premiere never happened. Just a day before its scheduled screening, the film was withdrawn from the festival.

Although no detailed official explanation was provided, Variety reported that sources attributed the withdrawal to political considerations, while several Indian publications subsequently highlighted the episode as another indication of the extraordinary pressures surrounding the project. The withdrawal immediately attracted attention because it departed from the normal dynamics of international film festivals.

Films are occasionally withdrawn because of production delays, unresolved rights disputes or technical reasons. Here, however, the project had already been completed. The concern centred not on the film’s readiness but on its subject matter. The aborted TIFF premiere therefore became another episode in the film’s increasingly remarkable history—one in which institutional obstacles repeatedly emerged whenever the film appeared close to reaching public audiences.

Abandoning theatres

Following years of uncertainty, repeated certification disputes and prolonged delays, the producers eventually abandoned plans for a theatrical release altogether. This decision itself was significant. Unlike theatrical exhibition, films released directly on OTT platforms generally do not require prior certification under the existing regulatory framework governing streaming services. For many filmmakers working on politically contentious subjects, digital platforms have increasingly been viewed as an alternative avenue for audiences after theatrical certification becomes difficult.

It appeared that Punjab ’95 had finally found that route. Director Honey Trehan repeatedly emphasised that the version eventually released digitally represented the film as originally intended. Paramjit Kaur Khalra, the widow of Jaswant Singh Khalra, reportedly viewed the completed version and confirmed that the film remained unchanged in substance. Trehan similarly stated that the version released on ZEE5 was the same film that had been defended throughout the certification battle.

Diljit Dosanjh echoed those assertions. During interactions with audiences before the release, he stated that if even a single cut had been imposed on the film, he would not have promoted it. According to media reports, he maintained that the film audiences would eventually watch was identical to the version he had seen years earlier.

For the filmmakers, the digital release therefore represented something more than distribution. It represented vindication. After years of negotiations, delays and resistance, the film would finally be seen. Or so it appeared.

When Satluj eventually appeared on ZEE5 on July 3, 2026, there was little of the elaborate publicity normally associated with a major release featuring one of India’s biggest stars. Diljit Dosanjh’s films typically receive extensive promotional campaigns across television, digital media and live events. Yet Satluj arrived with remarkably subdued publicity.

Forty-Eight Hours Later: The film disappears again

If the release of Satluj appeared to mark the end of one of Indian cinema’s longest censorship battles, what followed instead transformed the controversy into something arguably even more troubling. The film became available on ZEE5 on July 3, 2026. Within two days, it was gone.

On July 5, viewers attempting to access the film in India found that it had been removed from the platform. No advance notice had been issued. No detailed explanation accompanied the decision. A film that had survived years of certification disputes, title changes and release delays had once again become inaccessible to Indian audiences. This time, however, the removal did not originate from the Central Board of Film Certification. It came after the film had already been released. That distinction is constitutionally significant.

For decades, debates around censorship in India have centred on the CBFC’s powers before a film reaches theatres. Satluj presents an altogether different phenomenon: a film that was already lawfully available for public viewing disappearing from a digital platform after release, without any publicly available legal order directing its removal.

The episode immediately raised difficult questions about the growing vulnerability of artistic expression in the digital age. If films can be withdrawn after release without transparent legal processes or publicly disclosed reasons, censorship itself begins to move beyond formal statutory mechanisms into a far more opaque domain.

ZEE5’s unusual statement

Soon after the removal, ZEE5 confirmed that Satluj would no longer be available to stream in India. Its statement, however, was remarkable not only for what it said, but also for what it omitted. The platform thanked audiences for the “overwhelming response” received during the brief period the film remained online and declared that it stood firmly behind both the film and its creators.

“At ZEE5, we stand firmly by Satluj and the creative vision behind it. We believe powerful storytelling has the ability to inspire, endure and leave a lasting impact. We remain committed to championing authentic and meaningful narratives.”

The platform further stated: “In light of the current developments, Satluj will be unavailable in India until further notice.”

It assured viewers that it was exploring “every appropriate avenue through due process” to restore the film and reiterated its commitment to artistic integrity and meaningful storytelling. Yet nowhere did the statement explain what those “current developments” were.

Satluj may have paused. But the conversation it started hasn’t.

Thank you for the incredible love.
We hope to bring it back soon.#Satluj pic.twitter.com/Ox3MZIBvlT

— ZEE5Official (@ZEE5India) July 5, 2026

The ambiguity immediately became the central feature of the controversy. Neither the platform nor any government authority publicly disclosed what had changed between July 3, when the film was made available, and July 5, when it became unavailable. For a controversy that had already stretched across three years, the absence of transparency only intensified speculation.

Government sources and the ‘Anti-India’ explanation

Although no formal governmental order directing removal entered the public domain, reports published by NDTV cited official sources claiming that certain portions of the film could be misused by “anti-India forces.” According to those reports, the concern was not merely the subject matter itself but the possibility that specific scenes or narratives could allegedly be exploited by hostile actors. Sources also noted that while OTT platforms are not subject to prior certification requirements comparable to theatrical films, concerns had been raised regarding the content after its release. These reported explanations immediately generated fresh debate.

The phrase “anti-India forces” has increasingly appeared in public discourse surrounding politically sensitive expression. Yet its deployment in relation to a feature film based on documented historical events raised difficult questions.

• What precisely constituted the objectionable material?
• Which portions of the film were considered problematic?
• Did those portions depart from established judicial records?
• Had any competent authority examined whether the film incited violence or hatred?

No detailed answers were forthcoming. Instead, the controversy became characterised by broad assertions about national interest without corresponding public disclosure of the legal or factual basis for restricting access.

Restrictions on freedom of expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution cannot ordinarily rest upon vague apprehensions alone. They must satisfy recognised constitutional grounds, such as sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, security of the State or incitement to an offence, and must also withstand judicial scrutiny regarding necessity and proportionality. Whether those standards were met in the case of Satluj remains impossible to evaluate because the reasons underlying the film’s removal have never been publicly articulated.

Diljit Dosanjh saw it coming

One of the most striking aspects of the controversy is that the film’s lead actor appeared to anticipate precisely what would happen. During an Instagram Live interaction with viewers shortly after the release, Diljit Dosanjh candidly admitted that he feared the film might not remain available for long.

“Today is Saturday. I feel it could be taken down by Monday. But no worries—you download it.”

The remark, widely reported by Hindustan Times, Times of India and other publications, initially appeared almost humorous. Within hours, it proved prophetic. After the removal, Dosanjh became considerably more direct. Posting a still from the film, he wrote:

“The same thing that happened to Satluj also happened to Shaheed Jaswant Singh Khalra.”

According to Dosanjh, the film recounting that struggle had itself become the subject of suppression. He later remarked that he had repeatedly wondered whether audiences would ever be allowed to watch the film at all, asking publicly: “Can’t we tell our own story?”

Beyond Satluj: What the controversy says about censorship in contemporary India

The removal of Satluj should not be viewed as an isolated controversy involving a single film, a streaming platform or a celebrated actor. Rather, it reflects a much broader transformation in how politically sensitive speech is regulated in India.

Traditionally, censorship in India has been associated with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Under the Cinematograph Act, films intended for theatrical release require certification before they can be publicly exhibited. That certification process has always been contentious. Filmmakers have repeatedly criticised the CBFC for functioning not merely as a certifying body but as an authority empowered to determine what citizens should or should not watch.

Over the years, several judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, have emphasised that freedom of expression cannot be curtailed merely because a section of society finds a work controversial or offensive. In Rangarajan, the Court famously observed that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration or violence, warning that doing so would amount to surrendering constitutional freedoms to those willing to intimidate or disrupt public order.

The Court’s reasoning was unequivocal. If a film does not fall within the limited restrictions recognised under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the State has an obligation to protect its exhibition rather than prohibit it merely because some groups oppose it. That constitutional philosophy appears increasingly difficult to reconcile with the contemporary reality confronting politically sensitive artistic works.

From formal censorship to informal control

The Satluj controversy demonstrates how censorship itself appears to be evolving. The earlier model was comparatively straightforward. A filmmaker submitted a completed work to the CBFC. The Board either certified it, sought modifications or refused certification. Its decisions could then be challenged before appellate authorities and constitutional courts. There existed, at least formally, a transparent statutory process.

The controversy surrounding Satluj suggests something considerably more complex. After years of battling certification, the filmmakers shifted to an OTT platform, where prior certification is generally unnecessary. The assumption was that digital distribution would allow audiences to access the work without navigating the same regulatory obstacles applicable to theatrical releases. Instead, the film disappeared after release, without a publicly available legal order, without any transparent adjudicatory process or without detailed reasons.

That shift is significant because it signals a movement away from formal censorship towards what many scholars describe as informal or indirect censorship—a situation in which legal prohibitions are replaced by institutional pressure, regulatory uncertainty, commercial risk or opaque decision-making.

The consequence may ultimately be the same. The public is denied access to the work. The only difference is that responsibility becomes more difficult to locate. Was the removal voluntary or was it prompted by governmental communication?  Did legal concerns emerge after release or were there political pressures? The public still does not know. In constitutional democracies, opacity itself is a problem. Restrictions upon expression derive legitimacy not merely from statutory authority but from transparency, accountability and the possibility of judicial review. When those elements disappear, censorship becomes considerably more difficult to challenge.

Political sensitivity is not a constitutional ground for censorship

One feature unites many of the most controversial censorship disputes in independent India- they concern politically sensitive history. Films addressing communal violence, caste oppression, insurgency, police excesses, emergency-era abuses or governmental failures have repeatedly encountered resistance from one institution or another.

Yet the Constitution contains no exception permitting censorship merely because a subject is politically uncomfortable. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. That freedom is undoubtedly subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Those restrictions include sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to offences.

Notice what does not appear in Article 19(2)- there is no constitutional category called political sensitivity. There is no ground permitting restrictions because historical events remain controversial. Nor does the Constitution authorise suppression because a work may embarrass governments, expose institutional failures or revisit contested episodes of national history. Democracies are expected to accommodate precisely such speech.

Indeed, constitutional protections become most meaningful when they shield expression that unsettles prevailing political narratives. Speech that is universally accepted rarely requires constitutional protection. It is controversial speech, provided it remains within constitutional limits, that tests the strength of democratic institutions.

The chilling effect on political cinema

The implications of the Satluj controversy extend far beyond this single production. Cinema is an extraordinarily resource-intensive medium. A politically sensitive feature film often requires years of research, substantial financial investment and the willingness of producers, distributors and actors to assume considerable commercial risk.

When filmmakers witness a project spending three years in certification disputes, reportedly facing over one hundred proposed cuts, undergoing repeated title changes, losing its theatrical release, withdrawing from an international film festival and finally disappearing from a streaming platform within forty-eight hours, the lesson extends beyond that individual case. The consequence is self-censorship.

Future filmmakers may decide that certain subjects are simply not worth pursuing. Producers may avoid financing projects concerning custodial violence, communal riots, insurgency, enforced disappearances or politically contentious episodes. Streaming platforms may hesitate before acquiring similarly sensitive content. Actors may decline participation. Writers may soften narratives before anyone even asks them to do so. This phenomenon, the suppression of expression not through direct prohibition but through anticipatory fear, is one of the most enduring concerns in free speech jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that vague or excessive restrictions create a “chilling effect” on expression, discouraging lawful speech because individuals cannot confidently predict where regulatory boundaries actually lie.

Whose history is remembered?

At its core, the controversy surrounding Satluj is ultimately about memory. Jaswant Singh Khalra dedicated his life to documenting disappearances that many families feared would never be officially acknowledged. His investigations attempted to preserve records that otherwise risked disappearing from public consciousness. The film sought to tell that story. Whether audiences agree with every creative choice made by the filmmakers is beside the point.

Democratic societies do not require unanimity regarding historical interpretation. They require the freedom to debate it. Cinema occupies a unique place within that process. Unlike academic writing or judicial decisions, films reach millions who may never otherwise encounter chapters of history.

The journey of Punjab ’95—from Ghallughara, to Punjab ’95, to Satluj—is no longer simply the story of a film. It is the story of the increasingly uncertain space occupied by politically sensitive artistic expression in contemporary India.

A project inspired by the life of a murdered human rights activist reportedly encountered years of certification disputes, demands for extensive alterations, repeated title changes, the cancellation of its international premiere, the abandonment of theatrical release, and finally, its removal from an OTT platform within two days of release. Whether each of those developments arose from formal regulatory decisions, institutional caution or broader political sensitivities, the cumulative effect is unmistakable.

The public conversation has shifted from the content of the film to the conditions under which difficult histories may be narrated at all. That shift should concern anyone committed to constitutional democracy. The measure of a democracy is not how comfortably it accommodates stories that reinforce official narratives. It is how confidently it allows the telling of stories that question power, revisit painful histories and compel institutions to confront uncomfortable truths. The legacy of Jaswant Singh Khalra reminds us that documenting history is often an act of courage. The journey of Satluj suggests that saying that history through cinema may require courage too.

[1] E/CN. 4/1996/38, Commission on Human Rights, Fifty-second session, Report of the Working Group on Enforced on Involuntary Disappearances, paras 236-240; E/CN. 4/1997/34, para 181—from Background Materials by Ram Narayan Kumar for the Conference at Boston in 2003

Related:

Satluj: A film encountered

Kerala’s LDF govt to defy Centre’s diktat, to screen all films as per schedule at IFFK

Erasing Resistance: How the CBFC is censoring films that challenge caste and state power

Fiction as history and history honestly portrayed: a tale of two films and a documentary

Congress Radio, the power of revolutionary change: Lessons from ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, the film

The post From Punjab ’95 to Satluj: When cinema becomes a battlefield over history, memory and censorship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A meeting to commemorate the fifth death anniversary of Father Stan Swamy was held yesterday, Sunday, July 5. Organised by the Bombay Catholic Sabha at the Loyola Hall, it was well attended by close to two hundred Mumbaikars. Invited speakers spoke on the theme “Fr. Stan and his belief in the Constitution”

After a welcome address by Norbert Mendonca, President BCS, Father Luke Rodrigues of the Saint Peters Church initiated the meeting by appealing for efforts to take Father Stan Swamy’s message and sterling work forward amongst the people as the best tribute to Father Swamy and his legacy

Teesta Setalvad, Secretary of Citizens for Peace recounted her Father Stan Swamy’s extensive writings and documentation of the injustices and non-implementation of the laws that accord land rights to Adivasis, in Jharkand and elsewhere. Father Stan Swamy wrote regularly for Sabrangindia and his articles may be read here, here and here. Father Swamy’s biggest strength was his tireless work among Indian Adivasis, especially the indigenous peoples of Jharkand, Setalvad said, urging that his death and the incarceration of dozens of political prisoners whould compel rights groups and citizens to redouble efforts to get the draconian UAPA law, repealed. Read analyses of this law here and here.

Setalvad also detailed how Father Stan was unjustly targeted with the “(im) planting of documents and other evidence” in his computer, facts which came to light in December 2022, ten months after his death through the Arsenal Report that was first published both in The Washington Post and on the NDTV portal. This evidence, she said exposed the work of a malafide state. Campaigns to Repeal the UAPA and to ensure improved Prison Conditions should be the best way to take Father Stan Swamy’s legacy ahead

A message from Father Fraser Mascerenhas was also read out at the event where he emphasised the need to use the occasion of Father Stan Swamy’s death anniversary to renew the commitment for social justice for the disadvantaged and called upon all citizens to honour the Constitution by speaking out against injustice

Irfan Engineer, Director CSSS read out messages of solidarity from both Citizens for Democracy and senior activists Surendra Gadling and Dinkar Gota – who have undertaken a one day fast in memory of Father Stan Swam on July 5. Engineer further highlighted the work of Father Swamy in fighting for the constitutional values of ‘Fraternity & Dignity’ for vulnerable communities especially the Adivasis and defending their collective rights. He also said that Father Swamy made a courageous effort to protect the Adivasis from attempts by unscrupulous MNCs to grab their natural resources

Shakir Shaikh General Secretary, APCR spoke about the need to go to the Common People with Father Stan Swamy’s values and thoughts and the need to help the common citizens in the SIR Process. Advocate Raphael Dsouza, former President of the Bombay Catholic Sabha recounted shameful incidents during the (medical bail hearings that revealed the extent of injustice that Father Swamy was subjected to and how the uncaring process contributed to his death. Well known journalist Anto Akkara who had come from Kochi for the public meeting also spoke on the occasion

Senior advocate Mihir Desai , also national vice president, PUCL strongly asserted that the death of Father Stan Swamy was nothing less than an ‘encounter killing’ because Father Swamy was put in jail knowing well that a) he was innocent and b) Given his fragile health he would not survive the hardships of the incarceration.

Desai also said that the reason the system wanted Father Swamy behind bars was that they did not want representatives from marginalised communities to speak up. He highlighted ongoing efforts to judicially prove Father Swamy’s innocence and establish accountability for his “judicial murder”. He called upon citizens to be bold enough to fight for justice and believe in inherent good nature of humanity for the ‘Truth to Prevail.’

The session was moderated by Dolphy Dsouza, spokesperson of the BCS and closed with a Vote of Thanks by Brian D’souza of the BCS. The public meeting was co-organised by organisations like the Bombay Catholic Sabha (BCS), Centre for Study of Society & Secularism (CSSS), Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Christian Development Association (CDA), Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), Mumbai for Peace and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) etc and was well attended by a large crowd of 150+ citizens braving the heavy rains.

Related:

How is it sedition if Adivasi’s choose self-governance through Gram Sabha?

SC bats for Adivasis’ rights over natural resources, Govt disagrees

How PESA, an Act of Parliament is Being Subverted in Jharkand

90% of mining in India is illegal: Deprived of basic rights, tribals treated as untouchables in their lands

Why Adivasis seek to re-assert their traditional identity

The post To a living Saint, now dead five years: Meeting to commemorate July 5 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the last INDIA bloc meeting at Delhi’s Constitution Club in June, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge announced that the Opposition parties will send a letter to the CJI “regarding serious questions raised about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), manipulation of the electoral rolls, and the fairness of elections.” This letter dated June 28, 2026 appears to be the first step in this direction.

While DMK and AAP’s signatures on the letter to CJI signal that the two parties come on board on key issues that affect all parties, a senior Opposition leader ruled out any deeper participation in the short term. AAP quit the mega Opposition group in 2025 after agreeing to contest only during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. The DMK left the alliance last month after the Congress decided to support the Tamil Nadu chief minister C Joseph Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government.

Why this letter is significant

The detailed letter to the CJI flags the questionable methods by which the Election Commission (ECI) under the present Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar, in the name of ‘clean up’ of electoral rolls has undertaken an exercise that has had an opposite and anti-democratic outcome! On the Bihar 2025 SIR, the letter states that, “

“This massive exercise just before the assembly elections, was ill-timed and its faulty implementation a monumental disaster. This, despite the fact that electoral rolls, after they were digitized (2002) were continuously revised and updated by the Commission. But a de-novo revision, never attempted in the fashion adopted by the Commission would ordinarily have required at least a year to do, without being suspect. The documentation process, adopted for the first time, was inherently exclusionary and politically motivated. Verification of voters based on filling forms and production of documents, questioning citizenship, left voters disenfranchised. Lakhs of voters did not possess the required documents. Many of them did not have the capacity to fill forms and forward them as mandated. This was particularly true of those who are poor, uneducated, including Dalits, Adivasis, members of the minority community and migrant workers. There were instances, that the Commission was aware of, where videos circulating on the social media showed booth level officers themselves filling the forms by forging signatures, and in some instances, uploading these forms without the consent of the voters. Even deceased persons were shown to be submitting forms. There was complete lack of transparency and administrative confusion in the implementation of this process exacerbated by the timeframe within which it was required to be done. Instructions of the Commission were changed midway from time to time. There was confusion even amongst election officials.”

Besides the letter states that the “grievance redressal mechanism was inadequate and there was a massive arbitrary deletion of names without proper notice. The alleged objective of the exercise was to remove duplicate voters and the names of the deceased and migrants from the voter’s lists. But the process, as implemented, lacked not just transparency but was implemented in a manner unknown to all processes undertaken in the past. The existing updated electoral rolls were used at the time of the Lok Sabha elections (2024). Even in 2014, the then updated electoral rolls reflected an outcome that none questioned. The whole process of the SIR, according to us, was meant to favour the BJP.”

On Bengal, the letter points to the shocking and deliberate malfunctioning by the ECI. The letter alleges that it appears that the Commission “was concerned only with the outcome of that election since it raised no real issues of manipulation in other states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Assam where the SIR was not implemented.”

However, states the communication,

It was apparent that the West Bengal Government was under siege with the presence of 2 lakh 40 thousand CAPF personnel. To put this in context, 3 lakh 50 thousand CAPF personnel were deployed for the entire Lok Sabha election in 2024. There was also a massive deletion of names from the electoral rolls, including those arbitrarily removed, under a never-used-before-category titled ‘logical discrepancies’.

This devious ploy alone left 27 lakh people without the right to vote.

This Hon’ble Court (the Supreme Court) constituted Tribunals to dispose of the appeals where names stood deleted. One of the 19 Tribunals hearing the appeals headed by Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, found that of the 1777 names deleted for which appeals were heard by him, 1717 were wrongly deleted. This means 96% of the names were wrongly deleted. If the same proportion is applied on other pending appeals before the 19 tribunals, it would mean that more than 25 lakh voters were unable to cast their votes due to a process which was inherently flawed.

Most of the deletions were found to be in constituencies where the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) was dominant. The SIR is an unusual process with which the ordinary voter is unfamiliar. The requirement of filling forms, forwarding them and furnishing of documents in a country where there is massive poverty and illiteracy is essentially exclusionary.

Massive deletions, non-transparent processes, the unprecedented numbers of CAPF personnel deployed, the nomination of two representatives of the Union government of their choice and the Returning Officer chosen by the blatantly biased Commission at the counting centres, with no nominee of the AITC, made for a partisan process and consequently suspect. The en masse transfer of 483 officials including the then Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and others replaced by officers posted by the Commission was an unusual exercise. Such extreme steps were not taken in any election in the past.

Stating that before launching any such exercise like an SIR, the ECI must have previous inquiries and investigations to show “the extent to which the electoral rolls in each state were polluted and why it was necessary to do this exercise for these elections and in such haste.” However, “Even many BLOs in West Bengal were deprived of their right to vote.” While the ECI has been provided enough data and information to show that public confidence in the SIR process has been eroded, the ECI remains deaf to all independent representations, assert the Opposition.

The Letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant acknowledges that such a communication by the Opposition to the highest judiciary is unusual, asserts that it is warranted given the unprecedented crisis for institutional democracy and the faith of all Indians in Indian democracy. Hence, the Opposition has demanded through this letter that the “impending SIR in the states of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat etc. be suspended” and such a process launched if at all when the next Assembly Election is five years away.

Though no details have been provided, the communication makes a brief reference to the fact that “serious questions are also being raised about the process of electronic voting, and in particular about the role of electronic voting machines,” and hence “return to paper ballots” may be the answer.”

Finally urging that “ a transparent electoral process, in which every Indian has full confidence, is essential to sustaining public trust in our democracy,” the letter also points out how law enforcement agencies like the CBI, ED and NIA “ are used not only to target those in opposition. These agencies are also used for the purpose of manipulating the outcome of results in the elections, apart from bringing down elected governments.”

Senior Opposition leader and Trinamool’s Rajya Sabha floor leader Derek O’Brien wrote, “Good going from INDIA. And yes, @AamAadmiParty @arivalayam DMK also signed the joint letter to CJI.”

The letter may be read here:

Related:

SIR and the Making of a Stateless Citizen? | R. Rajagopal Speaks Out | Teesta Setalvad

Karnataka launches SIR with 5.5 crore voters, State Govt voices transparency concerns

Karnataka launches SIR with 5.5 crore voters, State Govt voices transparency concerns

The post 21 Opposition parties to CJI: SIR process is irregular and illegal, must be suspended appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hence, in a pro-active move, on July 2, 2026, a delegation representing ‘Mumbai for Peace’ and 24 other civil society organizations visited the Office of the Police Commissioner to submit a detailed memorandum regarding the proposed event on Sunday. The delegation also highlighted that individuals, specifically identifying Ankit Yadav—a resident of Golibar, Santacruz—and his associates, have been regularly engaging in questionable (read criminal) and hate-filled activities that pose a severe threat to the city’s law and order.

The memorandum details how these groups have been breaking in at prayer venues and using social media to disseminate false propaganda against peaceful Christian religious assemblies. These actions have included making unfounded allegations of “black magic” against members of the Christian community, which the delegation argues have led to unnecessary police pressure and the filing of cases against the very pastors and religious heads whose services were targeted. In criminal law, such actions amount, among other things to criminal trespass. The memorandum dated July 2, 2026 may be read below:

The imminent threat in Vakola

The primary concern necessitating the July 2, 2026 meeting was an inflammatory call to action circulating on social media under the banner of “Sakal Hindu Samaj”. The poster alleges that illegal religious conversions are taking place in Vakola (Gamdevi) and demands strict legal action against four unnamed pastors by July 4, 2026. It is such unfounded and misguided provocations that have been consistently indulged in by this and other outfits, often unchecked by the police and administration.

Link: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaNcKWoIjHl/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

The content of the poster explicitly states that if these demands are not met by the police, the group intends to assemble on Sunday, July 5, 2026, in Santacruz East to sit directly in front of a Christian prayer assembly and perform a recitation of the Hanuman Chalisa. The message characterises the potential disturbance of law and order as the responsibility of the Vakola Police Station, a framing that the delegation has explicitly labelled as criminal intimidation intended to provoke communal tension.

Background

According to the memorandum submitted by the organisations, every Sunday, groups of anti-social elements allegedly target peaceful assemblies of followers of Jesus Christ. They are accused of criminally trespassing into places of worship, assaulting and threatening those present, and creating disturbances outside police stations. The representation states that these individuals, allegedly associated with the Bajrang Dal form groups arrive in large numbers, creating law-and-order situations, and that Ankit Yadav and his associates (Manojkumar Sarva, Abhishek Omprakash Tiwari, Dhananjay Dubey, Mehul Khokardiya, Harsh Pathak, Pradeep Mishra, Aditya Upadhyay and others) allegedly raise communal slogans outside police stations as part of a planned campaign. It further alleges that they circulate videos on social media containing false and baseless allegations against Christians, with the aim of spreading hatred and communal tensions. The memorandum also claims that these groups routinely approach police stations alleging, without basis, that their religious sentiments have been hurt and that Christian pastors are practising black magic. As a result of the pressure created by these incidents and the resulting law-and-order concerns, the representation alleges that the police have, in several instances, registered cases against pastors under the provisions of the Black Magic Act and for offences relating to hurting religious sentiments.

Link: https://www.instagram.com/p/DaL2INlM-Yg/

Recent incidents highlighting a pattern of disruption and intimidation

The detailed memorandum submitted to the authorities yesterday also highlighted recent incidents that reveal a clear and alarming pattern of organised disruption and intimidation directed at the Christian community. These recurring events demonstrate how anti-social elements systematically target peaceful gatherings to create communal instability. Some of these recent incidents include the following:

• Attack on a peaceful Christian assembly in Vasai (June 12, 2026): On June 12, 2026, Ankit Yadav and members of his group allegedly travelled from Santacruz to Vasai and attacked a peaceful Christian assembly being held at Dheeraj Complex, Second Floor, Evershine, Vasai East, within the jurisdiction of Achole Police Station. They allegedly forcefully entered the hall, assaulted those present, and created a law and order situation. In connection with the incident, Achole Police Station registered FIR No. 202 of 2026 against “unknown members of Bajrang Dal” under Sections 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. However, despite CCTV footage reportedly showing Ankit Yadav and his associates physically attacking those assembled, no arrests have been made. Subsequently, Ankit Yadav and his associates allegedly made false allegations that the pastor had hurt their religious sentiments and was practising black magic. According to the representation, these allegations are baseless, as the gathering consisted solely of Bible readings and prayers, which had been conducted peacefully for years. Based on these allegations, Achole Police Station registered cross FIR Nos. 204 and 205 of 2026 against one Ravi Gupta. The representation further states that CCTV footage of the entire incident was provided to the police for investigation, but no action has yet been taken against Ankit Yadav and his accomplices.

• Attempted disruption of a Christian gathering in Kandivali (June 14, 2026): On Sunday, June 14, 2026, Ankit Yadav and members of his group allegedly attempted to forcefully enter a Christian assembly being held at White House Banquet Hall, behind Golden Leaf Hotel, Kandivali East, Mumbai. After being prevented from entering the premises, they reportedly went to Charkop Police Station, created a law and order situation, and alleged that Pratik Sitaram Naik was posting content about miracles of Jesus Christ on social media and spreading false claims about miracles. Following the incident, Charkop Police Station registered FIR No. 476 of 2026 against Pratik Sitaram Naik under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Maharashtra Black Magic Act. The representation states that despite clarifications being provided to the police, no action has yet been initiated against Ankit Yadav and others.

• Similar incidents reported at multiple locations: The representation further alleges that the same group has been involved in similar incidents targeting Christian gatherings at Ghatkopar on June 7, Andheri on June 20, and several other locations, following what it describes as a recurring pattern of disrupting peaceful religious assemblies, making allegations of forced conversion or black magic, and creating law and order situations. It contends that despite repeated complaints, effective action against the alleged perpetrators has remained absent.

Engagement with police leadership

The delegation held a formal meeting with the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, to appraise him of these developments. The delegation included diverse voices such as Sameer Wagle, Smriti Nevatia, Pastor David Tribhuvan, Fr. Frazer Mascerenhas, Neena Shah More, Elvina Gonsalves, Pastor Jomon Mathew, Dolphy Dsouza, Shakir Shaikh, Ashfaque Mohammed Yaqub, Sandhya Panaskar, Shaista Sayyed Aejaz, Lalita Deonalli, and Lara Jesani.

During the meeting, the Joint CP stated that the police force was cognisant of the incidents involving these individuals. He provided an assurance to the delegation that the police would take all necessary steps to address these concerns and uphold the rule of law within the city. The collective of organisations emphasised that their goal is to ensure the constitutional rights of all citizens—specifically Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 21 (life and liberty), and Article 25 (freedom of religion)—are protected against such targeted harassment.

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP): preventive frontier

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has consistently adopted a systematic, evidence-based approach to countering hate speech and communal mobilisation. Central to its strategy is the proactive filing of preventive legal complaints with district and state authorities. When events organised by groups such as the Sakal Hindu Samaj, Hindu Janajagruti Samiti and by the habitual hate offenders are announced, CJP monitors these platforms to identify potential threats to public order.

The organisation’s complaints are rooted in documented history, highlighting the recurrence of provocative rhetoric and violence at past events. By providing authorities with concrete evidence—such as social media posters, planned agendas, and the track records of scheduled speakers—CJP urges the police to invoke Supreme Court guidelines on hate speech and deny permissions for events likely to incite enmity. These filings emphasise that preventive measures are not merely discretionary but are mandated by judicial precedents to maintain peace. Furthermore, CJP’s interventions extend to scrutinising campaigns related to exclusionary narratives, such as “love jihad” or calls for economic boycotts.

By consistently engaging with administrative and police machinery, CJP advocates for the enforcement of constitutional rights, aiming to hold hate offenders accountable while compelling local administrations to fulfill their duty in preventing communal harm.

A joint demand backed by 25 civil society organisations

The representation was jointly endorsed by 25 civil society organisations, demonstrating widespread support from civil society. The signatories include the Bombay Catholic Sabha, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Citizens for Justice and Peace, All India Students’ Federation (Mumbai), Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS), Pani Haq Samiti, Christian Development Association, Parcham Collective, Citizens for the Constitution, Hasrat-e-Zindagi, Mamuli, Free Speech Collective, Stree Mukti League, Platform for Social Justice, Disha Students’ Organisation, Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), Bhagat Singh Jan Adhikar Yatra, Students Islamic Organisation (Mumbai), Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (Mumbai), among others.

By copying the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West Division Zone 1) and the Senior Inspector of Police at the Vakola Police Station, the delegation demands the urgency of local-level preventive measures.

Related:

Two Hate-Filled Speeches, One Election: CJP complaints against Himanta Biswa Sarma and Tausif Alam for spreading hate and fear in Bihar elections

CJP files complaint with ECI against Arunachal Minister Ojing Tasing for threatening voters with denial of welfare schemes

Words that Divide: BJP MP’s Bhagalpur speech targets Muslims, CJP files MCC complaint claiming violation of election laws

CJP calls for action by NCM against hate speeches at Dharam Sansad and Trishul Deekha events, files 2 complaints

CJP files complaints against the Hate Speeches delivered in Uttar Pradesh

The post Act Now: Citizens delegation approaches Mumbai police to prevent potential intimidation of Christians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a significant interim order passed by Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar at the Kalaburagi Bench, the Court stayed the endorsement issued by the Basavakalyan Tehsildar refusing permission for the event. However, while allowing the convention to proceed, the Court carefully moulded the relief by placing strict conditions upon both the organisers and the invited religious leader whose proposed participation had triggered the controversy.

Most notably, the Court directed that Kaneri Mutt seer Sri Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji may physically attend the event but shall not deliver any speech whatsoever, either personally or through any other individual. The restriction addresses the very basis on which the State had denied permission, namely the apprehension that his speech could provoke communal disharmony and disturb law and order.

State’s refusal based on anticipated law-and-order concerns

The petition was filed by the President of the Samavesha Utsava Samiti, challenging the Tehsildar’s endorsement dated, June 11 refusing permission for the proposed convention. Along with an accompanying procession to be held at either the Akkamahadevi College premises or the Basaveshwara ITI Auditorium.

The State justified its refusal by pointing to the invited seer’s previous public statements, alleging that he had repeatedly used derogatory, insulting and provocative language against the Lingayat community and followers of Basavanna. According to the authorities, those statements had previously led to widespread protests and objections from several Lingayat organisations, including the Karnataka Lingayat Mathadhipatigala Okkoota and the Basavanpura Association.

Given this background, the administration expressed apprehension that permitting both the event and the seer’s speech could result in serious disturbances and communal unrest.

Advocate General highlights existing injunction against seer

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty argued before the High Court that the authorities’ concerns were not speculative but were founded upon the seer’s previous conduct.

The State further pointed out that there already exists an interim injunction restraining the seer from making defamatory statements against members of the Lingayat community. In light of that background, the Advocate General submitted that allowing the seer to publicly address a large gathering carried a substantial risk of triggering confrontation between rival religious groups and disrupting public peace.

Organisers and seer offer undertakings before Court

During the proceedings, as per LiveLaw, the High Court sought assurances from both the organisers and the invited seer.

Pursuant to the Court’s earlier directions issued on June 18, separate affidavits were filed by the organising committee and Sri Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji. The organisers undertook to conduct the programme peacefully, ensure compliance with any conditions imposed by the authorities, and cooperate in maintaining public order.

The seer, for his part, furnished an unconditional undertaking that he would neither deliver a speech himself nor communicate any speech indirectly through another person during the programme. These undertakings ultimately became central to the Court’s decision.

Court permits event but removes the source of apprehension

After considering the affidavits and rival submissions, the Court concluded that the principal apprehension expressed by the State related to the possibility of inflammatory speeches rather than the mere holding of the religious gathering itself.

Justice Krishna Kumar observed that the categorical undertaking furnished by the seer substantially addressed the concerns which had prompted the authorities to reject permission in the first place.

Accordingly, while staying the Tehsildar’s endorsement refusing permission, the Court allowed the convention to proceed subject to carefully crafted safeguards intended to preserve public order.

In doing so, the Court effectively separated the constitutional right to hold a peaceful assembly from the specific activity that the State feared might trigger violence.

Strict conditions imposed

The High Court made it clear that its permission was neither unconditional nor absolute. Among the most significant conditions imposed are:

• Sri Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji may remain physically present at the convention but shall not make any speech or address the gathering either directly or indirectly.
• Attendance at the programme shall not exceed 2,500 persons.
• No procession shall be conducted before or after the programme.
• No participant shall deliver hate speech or make statements capable of disturbing communal harmony or public order.
• No abusive language or insults directed at any political leader, religious leader, religious denomination or ethnic community shall be permitted.
• Any breach of these conditions would expose the organisers to legal consequences and liability.

The Court also took note of the State’s submission regarding limited police deployment and observed that restricting the gathering and prohibiting a procession would assist in ensuring adequate maintenance of law and order.

Judicial balancing between fundamental rights and public order

The interim order illustrates the judiciary’s attempt to reconcile two competing constitutional considerations. On one hand lies the right to peacefully assemble and organise religious or public events, protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. On the other lies the State’s constitutional obligation to maintain public order and prevent violence, particularly where previous incidents and existing judicial orders indicate a real possibility of inflammatory speech leading to communal tensions.

Instead of either completely prohibiting the event or allowing it without restriction, the High Court adopted a narrowly tailored approach. By permitting the gathering while restraining the individual whose speech constituted the primary source of concern, the Court sought to preserve constitutional freedoms without ignoring legitimate public-order considerations. The order therefore reflects an exercise in judicial balancing rather than an endorsement of unrestricted executive discretion or an absolute assertion of free speech.

Significance of the order

The case also demonstrates that while prior restraints on speech are generally viewed with constitutional caution, courts may be willing to impose narrowly framed restrictions in exceptional circumstances where there exists credible material suggesting an imminent threat to public order.

Equally significant is the Court’s insistence that no participant, not merely the invited seer, shall engage in hate speech or make statements targeting political figures, religious leaders or communities. By extending responsibility to the organisers themselves, the Court reinforces the principle that those conducting large public gatherings bear a corresponding obligation to ensure that constitutional freedoms are exercised responsibly and without endangering communal harmony.

The matter has been directed to be listed again on July 1, 2026, when the High Court will consider the case further while the interim protection granted to the organisers continues to operate subject to the conditions imposed.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

The Supreme Court blinks when it comes to Hate Speech

CJP flags ‘communal polarisation campaign’ in Bengal polls, seeks action against BJP leaders over election speeches

Censorship and the Drumbeats of Hate: Mapping the state of free speech ahead of the 2026 polls

CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal

The post Karnataka HC allows Hindu convention but bars invitee seer from speaking to prevent law-and-order concerns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this conversation with Teesta Setalvad, Rajagopal recounts his personal ordeal and reflects on the wider implications of SIR exercises now being discussed and expanded across multiple states. The discussion explores the relationship between electoral rolls, citizenship, passport verification, welfare entitlements and democratic rights.

The conversation also raises difficult questions: Why is there so little transparency around SIR processes? What happens when administrative verification begins to determine access to rights? Where are the media and political opposition in this debate? And if this can happen to a veteran journalist with decades of documentation, what does it mean for millions of ordinary citizens?

The post SIR and the Making of a Stateless Citizen? | R. Rajagopal Speaks Out | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.